Why don't they make slow SSDs?

seekdestroy

seekdestroy

seekdestroy

Associate
Joined
9 Sep 2008
Posts
699
I've been wondering this for a while, all these companies are obsessed about is getting the biggest fastest SSDs they can make.

But surely it would make more sense to do super fast 100GB SSDs for boot and windows, then do 500GB SSDs that haven't got super fast read/writes (like HDD speeds). Then everyone could have silent PCs and it would be better value for money.
 
The very nature of how SSD works makes it more or less impossible to make a "slow" drive.
The only reason old fashioned drives are slow is down to spindle speed - so the 5400rpm units were slow.
However with no spindle, SSD can't be slow.
 
The "slow" SSDs are the ones most people will consider buying and are discussing on these forums. They're as cheap as they can be at the moment. The more expensive SSDs are the likes of the Intel X25 'Extreme' and the OCZ IBIS.
 
Last edited:
They do make slow ones, their called Kingston. ;)
Which we stock and are cheaper.

Still the whole point of SSD is performance.
 
seekdestroy said:
I've been wondering this for a while, all these companies are obsessed about is getting the biggest fastest SSDs they can make.

But surely it would make more sense to do super fast 100GB SSDs for boot and windows, then do 500GB SSDs that haven't got super fast read/writes (like HDD speeds). Then everyone could have silent PCs and it would be better value for money.
Click to expand...


get a Western Digital WD5000BEVT 500GB 2.5 inch Internal SATA Hard Drive is you want space and silence and its cheap.
 
The market isn't there for them. If you want slow and lots of space, get a traditional hard drive. If you're after performance then it's SSD all the way and has been for a long time. It's only recently that the prices have dropped down to the "affordable" price range (though that's a relative term), there's no point whatsoever for manufacturers to artificially limit speeds on SSD's and then cut their margins whilst the demand still remains high.
 
SSDs don't lend themselves to big capacity versus high speed because the chips themselves all largely run at the same speed and cost much the same for MLC, the speed benefits largely come from the controller used and the level of parallelism, something which isn't that big a cost impact compared to the cost of the NAND chips themselves. Indeed, they can saturate the SATA link for such a small additional cost it's hardly worth the bother not doing it.
 
FabienO said:
Why don't they make slow racing cars?
Click to expand...

formula 3?

slower and cheaper ssd's would blow the market wide open. its fine to say ssd's are about performance but that isnt all people are interested. SSD's arent just useful in top end pc's, they are used in laptops, htpc ect. cheap, silent ssd storage would appeal to everybody. Though the reality is that isn't really achievable at the moment.
 
Its seems all the OP wants is a silent pc - there are plenty of options like a said a 2.5 hdd i have is silent and plenty fast in W7.

Your point about making ssd's slower and cheaper just doesn't make sense.
 
Gibbo said:
They do make slow ones, their called Kingston. ;)
Which we stock and are cheaper.

Still the whole point of SSD is performance.
Click to expand...

Not really, any performance increase i would get from an SSD is negligible due to my OS's and most of my programs running almost entirely in RAM space. However, i don't use that much space and i would happily get an SSD for the noise and power savings were it not for the price ;)
 
All im trying to say is the biggest selling point for SSDs ain't just speed, i know it's what you guys on here want, but its a technology which is shock resistant, silent, more economical, and no moving parts and i just think SSDs are getting too speed rather than price fixated. Rather than make really good value for money SSDs it seems more and more extreme £500+ SSDs are coming out.
 
Value for the money or cheaper SSDs are not feasible at this time. You guys are asking for something that cannot be built. It's rooted in the same limitations as memory modules; IC density.

You can only fit so many NAND flash chips onto a PCB inside a 2.5" form factor. They are expensive. So, size is limited by that number of chips. If you deviate from a 2.5" FF, then you are exponentially lowering the number of people you can potentially sell the drive to. Also, your price goes WAY up due to more ICs, controller changes, firmware, custom PCBs, etc etc etc.

Until NAND density goes up, WAY up, you will not see cheap high capacity SSDs. Just like you won't see 8GB memory modules. And slower controllers are not the answer and no company is going to invest a lot of money into making a slower controller anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yellowbeard said:
Value for the money or cheaper SSDs are not feasible at this time. You guys are asking for something that cannot be built. It's rooted in the same limitations as memory modules; IC density.

You can only fit so many NAND flash chips onto a PCB inside a 2.5" form factor. They are expensive. So, size is limited by that number of chips. If you deviate from a 2.5" FF, then you are exponentially lowering the number of people you can potentially sell the drive to. Also, your price goes WAY up due to more ICs, controller changes, firmware, custom PCBs, etc etc etc.

Until NAND density goes up, WAY up, you will not see cheap high capacity SSDs. Just like you won't see 8GB memory modules. And slower controllers are not the answer and no company is going to invest a lot of money into making a slower controller anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the OP's after, but i don't want a cheap high capacity drive. I want a cheap low capacity drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom